1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to authentication of computer generated game or test results (“outcomes”), and more particularly, to a system by which persons who play games or take tests on a game or testing computer, respectively (hereinafter the “game computer” or “testing computer”), may submit the outcomes of the games or tests to a central authority having at least one central computer, and have the central computer “certify” those outcomes as being accurately reported and fairly achieved. This certification of the computer generated result constitutes a “remote-auditing” of the activity taking place on the game computer. In one application, the system enables computer generated game tournaments in which players play the games on game computers and compete against each other by submitting the outcomes for those tournament games to the central computer, which certifies the outcomes and rates and ranks the players. In another application, the system provides for players of computer games to obtain a certified ranking and rating without participation in a tournament. In other embodiments, the system provides for self-authentication and certification of outcomes for games played on the game computer itself, or for mutual-authentication and certification of such outcomes on any other game computer in the system. The system further enables the submission and certification of test outcomes using the same methodology.
The present invention also provides for “pay-per-use” in the home video game environment, where any game computer may be turned into a video game arcade machine by metering usage of the game computer and/or game programs that run on the game computer. Players simply pay per game, or for play over a specified period of time in accordance with different pricing protocols. The invention also allows for “time-dependent disablement” which lets players acquire game consoles for a relatively low down payment. Charges for game play may then be incurred on a daily, weekly, monthly, or some other periodic basis.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Tournaments are a popular form of recreation and are amenable to many forms of organized activities, such as sports or games. There are two primary types of tournaments. In the first, players compete against one another (i.e., head-to-head), singularly or in teams, under controlled conditions. Examples include boxing, chess, karate and the like. In the second, players play a game without direct or simultaneous interaction with another player, where the player having the best score (e.g., golf, bowling, etc.), fastest time to completion (e.g., puzzles) or some combination thereof is pronounced the winner. Winners earn recognition for their skill and sometimes even prizes. Accomplished players of games of skill are often provided with an officially recognized ranking, rating and/or title.
Classic tournaments are usually held at a specific time and at a specific location, where they are conducted under a set of rules which apply equally to all contestants, and under the supervision of one or more judges and/or a sanctioning authority. A typical chess tournament may include one hundred to two hundred players who get together at a central location. They pay an entry fee and play a series of games over the course of a specified time period under the auspices of an officially sanctioned tournament director(s). At the end of the competition, the players are ranked and cash prizes are awarded to the top finishers. The United States Chess Federation administers a national rating system that ranks players with a numerical rating based upon the results of tournament sanctioned games against other rated players. Ratings may change over time as the player wins and loses games played in ongoing tournaments. Various rating ranges are given named titles. For example, an “Expert” chess player has a rating of between 2,000 and 2,200 and a “Master” chess player has a rating over 2,200 and so on.
The aforementioned tournaments have several drawbacks. Since most tournaments are held at some specified location, it is likely that some players may have to travel an appreciable distance, incurring expenses for travel, food, lodging and the like. Furthermore, it is often difficult to schedule a given tournament at a time that is convenient for all participants. In addition, there are only a limited number of sanctioned tournament directors who are available to run such tournaments. Since the fundamental object of any tournament is to ensure the integrity and authenticity of the results, without a tournament director, the results of the tournament are not verifiable. It is also difficult and impractical to run niche tournaments that appeal to a very small segment of the population, as the fixed costs associated with running a tournament can make it economically impractical where only a few participants are involved.
Aside from the so-called classic tournaments mentioned above, the players of many popular computer generated games enjoy competing for bragging rights as to who has the best score. Most arcade gaming machines typically display a series of high scores identifying the most recent top scoring players who played on a specific machine. Similarly, some dedicated game systems such as Nintendo, Sega and the like, and personal computers with dedicated game software, may display a series of high scores identifying top scoring players. While this enables a player who achieves a sufficiently high score to compare his or her performance with other players who have played on that particular machine or computer with that software, there is no way to prevent players from lying to others about their “purported” score. Therefore, there exists a need for a system whereby players of such games can register their scores with a central computer that certifies the scores and enables players to receive their ranking/rating with respect to other players on a national or even worldwide scale. In this connection, such a system could enable players of such games to participate in “electronic” tournaments where players either play individually or in teams on independently disposed game computers, or head-to-head via an on-line connection between at least two competing players.
One approach to electronic tournaments is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,083,271 to Thacher et al. (“Thacher”). In the Thacher system, a plurality of gaming terminals are networked to a central computer. A player purchases credit, enters a tournament, and is assigned a unique identification code. This identification code is stored in the gaming terminal and at the central computer. The player then proceeds to play a tournament game on the gaming terminal. When the player has finished the game, the player's score is transmitted to the central computer along with the player identification code and a game identification number. The central computer sorts through all of the scores at the conclusion of the tournament and determines a winner. The Thacher patent claims to provide some level of protection against substitution of players by utilizing a separate personal identification code for each player. Thus, to the extent that a player's personal identification code is not compromised, the person playing the game is uniquely identified with the achieved score. This arrangement has disadvantages, however, including the extensive network between all of the participatory game terminals, and the inability to verify that the scores in the tournament games were accurately reported and fairly achieved. For example, there is nothing in the Thacher system which prevents a player from modifying the game software to produce a more favorable outcome, or from intercepting communications of score and identification data from the remote gaming terminal to the central computer and then altering the same to register a false score.
Another well known system for “authenticating” video game scores utilizes a primitive method in which players take photographs of both video screens containing game scores and the game console, and then mail the pictures to a central authority. The monthly magazine Nintendo POWER publishes the Power Players' Arena, in which top scoring players are identified. Top scoring players receive Nintendo POWER Stamps which can be redeemed for prizes. The photograph of the video screen ostensibly prevents a player from simply making up a score. The photograph of the video screen and the game console supposedly enables the central authority to determine whether the player has utilized any unauthorized device to change the standard play conditions for the game. This system has a number of disadvantages. Taking a clear photograph of a video display is often difficult due to the reflective nature thereof. There is also a considerable amount of time that is required to transmit the photograph to the central authority and players must wait for the scores to be authenticated by Nintendo and thereafter published. This system is also vulnerable to players hacking the game software. No effort is made to determine whether or not the game software was tampered with. The use of well known interposing devices such as the GAME GENIE, which fits into the access port of a standard game console and enables codes to be entered that temporarily change the play conditions as software instructions are loaded into the read-write memory of the game console from the read-only memory of the game cartridge, is ostensibly prevented by requiring that a photograph of the entire game console accompany the photograph of the video screen. However, players can easily circumvent this problem by playing a game with an interposing device, taping the output with a VCR, thereafter removing the interposing device, and then playing back the recorded game for a subsequent photograph to be made without the interposing device installed in the game console.
Thus, there exists a need for a system that enables game computers operating independently at different times or in different places to certify their game outcomes in a manner that can be verified by a recipient thereof for purposes of comparison with other game outcomes. The system should allow such certification to be performed either by another game computer, or by a central computer. The system should not require complicated networking or real-time connections between the game computers, or between each game computer and the central computer during game play. The system should further allow for establishing the players' ranking, rating and/or title with respect to other players of the games based upon the players' certified scores.
In view of the above, there also exists a need for a system which permits players to participate in tournaments on game computers at any place and any time, without requiring complicated and costly networks or an on-line connection between the game computer and a central computer while the game is being played, without the need for the players to go to a specified location, and without the need to have an officially sanctioned tournament director present where the games are being played while still ensuring the authenticity of the participants' scores. The system should further allow for establishing the players' ranking, rating and/or title in the tournaments with respect to other players of the games based upon the player's certified scores.
It is also known in the art to remotely control and monitor the use of video game software as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,497,479 to Hornbuckle. This patent teaches a system whereby rental software is downloaded from a central computer to a remote control module (RCM) which is operably associated with a game computer. The RCM operates to receive rental software packages from the central computer, and to control and verify the use of such software on the game computer. The rental software resides in the insecure memory of the game computer. A portion of the software is referred to as a “key module”, a part of the software that is essential to program execution and without which the overall program will not execute on the game computer. The key module resides in an encrypted format, and must be decrypted by the RCM.
After such decryption, the key module is loaded with the rest of the program into the RAM of the game computer for execution. When the program is terminated, the decrypted instructions are erased from the RAM of the game computer. The RCM records the elapsed time between starting and stopping of the rental program, and stores such information in its memory for subsequent processing.
The Hornbuckle system suffers a primary drawback in that the key module resides in the insecure RAM of the game computer, thereby enabling a hacker to get at the key module, and allowing replacement of the key module in the data storage of the game computer. It would therefore be desirable to provide a system in which the use of game programs can be metered using cryptographic protocols without compromising secure encrypted portions of the such programs by not loading the same in unencrypted format into the insecure memory of a game computer. It would also be desirable to provide a system in which use of the game computer itself can be metered using similar protocols.